GRR… I initially -0ed this section, but had 1 minute left, and since I knew it was a hard section I went back to check and changed two right answered to wrong ones. I do this ALL the time in RC. Is it a good idea just to not look back on Monday?
This tripped me up too at first, maybe this will help
Passage A identifies the free speech here – “two acts, each of which is legally permissible separately, become illegal when combined … the right to free speech protects my right to make such a disclosure” (lines 5-10)
Passage B never specifically mentions free speech. However, they say in relation to information revealed about an individual, “if the shame would cause harm to the person’s status or reputation, then prima facie the threatened act of revelation was unlawful” (lines 47-50).
And furthermore, “assertion of the truth of the shameful fact being revealed was not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a legal privilege.” (lines 48-50)
And finally, “Just because something shameful happened to be true did not mean it was lawful to reveal it.”
Notice that none of these sentences mention money!!
In other words, passage A establishes free speech as the legal privilege to say whatever you want, which, when combined with seeking money, becomes illegal. In Rome, however, in ANY situation – not just blackmail – revealing a shameful fact about someone is “prima facie unlawful” and “not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a legal privilege.” Because passage B says these things are unlawful even in the ABSENCE of seeking money, we can conclude that free speech isn’t a right in Roman law.
EDIT:
I do not have a great explanation for why E is wrong. The best I can come up with is that although Passage A never mentions any interest of public authorities in having information revealed, we cannot assume that the law doesn’t recognize this interest in the US and Canada.
You’re right that passage A never mentions interest of public authorities. So stating that can’t be “most strongly supported” by what’s given in the passage.
